WINSTON O. LLOYD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
H.S. MCKENDREE, ETC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; WINSTON O. LLOYD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. HENRY HINES, ETC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not err in its findings regarding probable cause, administrative confinement, conditions of confinement, access to courts, and denial of an untimely jury trial request.
Petitioner brought two consolidated Sec. 1983 cases alleging unlawful arrest, punitive administrative confinement, denial of medical care, unconstitut…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Confinement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal in two consolidated Sec. 1983 cases.
The district court did not err in finding that petitioner was arrested with probable cause. The testimony was in conflict, and the court did not believe petitioner’s witnesses.
Nor did the court err in finding that petitioner was not placed in administrative confinement for punitive reasons but for a legitimate purpose of preventing him from intimidating a witness who was to testify in a matter involving petitioner. The evidence supports findings that petitioner was not denied medical care, that conditions of confinement were not unconstitutional, and that petitioner had reasonable access to the courts.
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely request for a jury trial.
The district court refused to subpoena petitioner’s former attorney to testify without tender of fees. The court ruled that a witness in a civil case must be tendered fees before service of the subpoena is complete and that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c), which provides for proceedings in forma pauperis, does not abrogate this requirement. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 45(c) service of a subpoena in a civil case must include the tendering of fees unless the subpoena is issued on behalf of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) specifies that a court “may authorize the commencement ... of any suit ... without prepayment of fees and costs ....” (emphasis added). Likewise, while the Fifth Circuit has suggested that district courts have either the implied or inherent power to subpoena witnesses for an indigent civil litigant, this power is discretionary. Estep v. U.S., 251 F. 2d 579 (5th Cir.1958).
The district court is required to issue subpoenas for indigent parties only in criminal proceedings, see Fed.R.Crim.Pr. 17(b), and in civil proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 1825. See also S.REP. NO. 615, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), reprinted in 1965 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2901; Hudson v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, 516 F.Supp. 708 (S.D.Ala.1981); Dortly v. Bailey, 431 F.Supp. 247 (M.D.Fla.1977). Since this is not such a case, it was within the district court’s discretion to deny the subpoena request. Lloyd has shown no abuse of this discretion. Estep, 251 F. 2d at 582.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McNEIL v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1987)…deny the appellant’s requests for the issuance of subpoenas is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F. 2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1975, 90 L.Ed.2d 659 (1986); Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F. 2d 705, 706-07 (11th Cir.1985). The appellant, proceeding in forma pauperis, was unable to pay witness fees. “Only where such fees may be waived by statute can a party seek such a waiver.” Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F. 2d 286, 289 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 46…
Authorities Cited
- Estep v. United States, 251 F.2d 579 (5th Cir. 1958)